Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

The most valuable features of the solution are BGP, VPN, and spine-leaf architecture. The solution has good scalability. The solution’s configuration is easy.

The solution’s licensing could be improved.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for 13 years.

I rate the solution ten out of ten for stability.

The solution has good scalability. Around 8,000 users use Cisco Catalyst Switches in our organization.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for scalability.

I previously used Juniper.

The solution’s initial setup is easy.

Cisco Catalyst Switches is a very expensive solution.

I would recommend the solution to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

The solution is primarily used for the access layer, distribution layer, core layer - the three layers as well as a signal fabric that is managed through the DNA center.

The performance is great.

The solution offers great scalability. 

We have found the pricing to be okay. It's not overly expensive. 

It has all of the features we need.

I've been pleased with the level of security.

The setup process is simple.

We've been happy with technical support.

We would like to see more automation integrated into the solution in future releases. 

The product could always be more secure.

I've used the solution for many years. It's been a while. 

The stability of the product is pretty good. There are no bugs or glitches. The performance is reliable. 

The solution scales well. If a company needs to expand it, it can.

We have customers on the solution that have 5- to 100 users and others that have thousands.

We've been very satisfied with technical support. Overall, it has been good. 

The initial setup is not overly complex or difficult. It is simple and straightforward. 

The number of people you need to maintain the product depends on how large it gets. Naturally, the bigger it is the more people you need. The size of the network will determine the maintenance requirements. 

The price of the solution is good. It's reasonably priced. The licensing fee depends on the setup.

I'm an integrator for Catalyst.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. I'd recommend it as a product to others. 

Cisco Catalyst Switches is our core switch.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are easy to use.

They are user-friendly.

It's a common product to use.

Cisco Catalyst Switches is the best product that we use.

We have a lot of security modules, but we don't have any problems with switches.

Cisco Switches are more stable in terms of hardware and firmware, rather than Juniper Switches.

We think it's popular. We prefer to use Cisco CLI commands rather than Juniper CLI commands.

Cisco Catalyst Switches could be more secure.

In terms of performance, Juniper switches have a more user-friendly interface and more features than Cisco switches.

The core Cisco Catalyst Switch is 4507.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are stable.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are scalable, and we use them for the entire team.

We don't need an upgrade right now because we're transitioning to another product that's already in place and ready in our infrastructure.

We have 500 users in our company.

We don't have any plans to increase our usage.

We don't have any issues with the technical support.

I believe we contacted support for the core switch once, and they helped us with the firmware, which we upgraded. It was, however, about five years ago.

Years ago, we didn't use any kind of support. But I believe it is working, and they are working threefold with no problems.

We use several products such as Cisco Switches, Access Points, Linksys, and Fortinet FortiGate.

We use an older version of Cisco Access Points, 4400, I believe.

Before Catalyst, we used Extreme Switches. We worked with Extreme Switches for five years.

The initial setup is straightforward. We have previous experience with Cisco switches. We can easily assist with any upgrades or support. It is very simple for us.

The price is fine. 

It is reasonably priced because we have already conducted a tender, allowing Cisco and other vendors to compete for the best price.

We did not renew the support.

It was a good price because, as I previously stated, we held a tender for purchasing and received the best offer.

I would recommend this solution to my colleagues.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a nine out of ten.

Our network infrastructure uses Cisco devices, including Cisco Catalyst Switches. 

The primary use case is routing traffic between the various sites that we are connected to. We have leased lines connected all over the country for use cases in revenue, immigration, and other government services.

You can easily set up and configure VLANs.

It is easy to set up connections between devices.

Cisco has to lower the price of its products to make them more cost-effective.

The Cisco Catalyst is very stable and it can last for many years. Some of our switches ran up until end-of-life and we are still using them now. We know that it's end-of-life but they still do the job.

We use a lot of products from Cisco.

The Cisco technical support is fine and we are satisfied with it. However, at this time, we are getting our support from another company and there are some issues with our subscription. As such, we are not getting all of our services.

We use Ubiquiti devices for our wireless LAN, and in addition to Cisco, we have routers from MikroTik. Within the last month, we used some Ruckus devices. These were connected to our MikroTik and Cisco devices.

We also bought a Cisco Nexus, but it is not yet configured.

The deployment was done before I joined the company.

I am responsible for network maintenance. It includes updating the routers and adding new devices. I will deploy the Nexus switch that we bought recently.

The prices of Cisco devices are too high.

We currently have the Catalyst 2960 and it is going end-of-life, so I am considering a replacement. They suggested replacing it with the 9200 but I'm currently comparing Cisco and Meraki devices.

In the market, some people are moving away from Cisco and using MikroTik devices because the price of Cisco products is too high. MikroTik products are cheaper and the gap in prices is too big. This is something that Cisco needs to consider.

I am looking forward to learning more about the Nexus that we bought because we are using old technology. There are a lot of new features.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

The security is very nice.

This is a feature-rich product and the newer models have improved features that allow for many new possibilities.

The virtual stacking feature is helpful.

My company would prefer that the price was more cost-effective.

I have been working with Cisco Switches for approximately 25 years.

With respect to stability, Cisco is a vendor that we can rely on.

I work with a variety of Cisco network products, including Cisco Wireless.

Pricing from Cisco is expensive but we pay for the reliability.

I am in the process of changing my core networking infrastructure, and I am moving into the new portfolio that is offered by Cisco. My boss regularly asks whether we can change from Cisco to another vendor to get better pricing, but I always reject this. We rely on Cisco.

When you have a homogenous network, as I do with only Cisco networking products, with no other components, then all of the features from the old platforms are available. I can use the same access procedures, regardless of whether the device is wireless, wired, or remotely accessed.

Overall, I am satisfied with Cisco Catalyst switches. The only complaint that my company has is about the pricing.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I'm using almost six Cisco switches.

We use the solution for the LAN, Local Area Network, for the organization, or for business. 

The solution is very stable.

The scalability is good.

They are managed switches, and we can control and manage almost all of these switches - even individually, one by one, or through a central control center.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

The device age becomes an issue. For example, with the 2960 version, they're not supporting that one anymore. I find that the device or the model age is a little bit short. It is five or eight years. When we have a big organization, we have 100 or 200 switches, and suddenly it's out of support, end of support, or end of life, or whatever, it's difficult as we cannot change switches every five years. At a minimum, they should last ten years. That's better. To upgrade, it's a huge budget. Therefore, the age of the product itself is a little bit short. They really should make it longer.

The technical response could be faster in the future. 

I've been using the solution for maybe ten years or so. It's been a while. 

The solution is perfectly stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability is pretty good. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem.

We have up to 600 or 700 users. It's not measured per user. Rather, it is per device. We have many devices on top of users.

We do plan to increase usage in the future. 

I have contacted technical support in the past. They are fine, however, they are a little bit slow.

We did not previously use a different solution. We've always used Cisco products.

The solution is easy to install for administrators and network engineers. People who are qualified in networking shouldn't face any issues. It's fine, it's easy.

The amount of time it takes to deploy a switch depends. If it is at layer switch, it will not take more than one hour, maximum, for each switch. However, if it is a core switch, it might take one day.

The size of the team you need for maintenance also depends. If we are going for an upgrade, we need a big team. However, if it is just for troubleshooting, only two engineers are required.

We can handle the implementation ourselves. We do not need any integrators or consultants. 

We can use the switches without licenses. However, with licenses, yearly licenses, it is better, as we will have more troubleshooting options and control options, through a control center device.

We use various versions of the solution. For the access layer switch, we have different models, including 2950 and 2960. Now, we are using the 9K series, 9200. The latest one. This is for the access layer. For core and distribution switches, we have 6500 and 4500 versions.

I'd recommend the solution to others.

I would rate them at a nine out of ten.

My primary use case is providing Catalyst switches for the edge and campus networking. You may have lots of IoT switches, like surveillance access points and you need to implement IPE switches that deliver the power and networking through the endpoint sensors. Most of these are considered access switches. We then implement the distribution layer that links all of the access switches and network traffic, then move to the course switches that handle all the packets and connect all the buildings to each other. After, the core is connected to the firewall, from Cisco as well, to get out of building to the internet. So the core portfolio comes from access to the core. I end with the firewall and the routers to the internet.

Cisco's support is called SMARTnet, but we provide support to customers in case of any troubleshooting or if it's on-premises. We act as a mid-layer between the customer and Cisco. Most customers deploy it on-premises, but some prefer to build their own private cloud. 

The most valuable feature is that Cisco comes with built-in software access for network devices. You may use SDN for SD-Access, so you don't need to configure each switch with its own configuration, but can deploy the configuration from a single point of management. You can also monitor the traffic and access for the users. Especially if they are using their own laptops, you can make a VLAN for each switch. Cisco is a very stable portfolio format considering the network features and the heavy duties of traffic.

The prices could be improved. Cisco is dedicated to providing their customers with the latest technology, but it comes with a price. It's very expensive and when compared to competitors' products, like HP or Aruba, this is the most expensive one. 

I can't think of any additional features I would like to see in the next version. The features included are sufficient. 

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst for more than ten years. 

Cisco is famous for its stability and operating system. It's a very stable platform for heavy-duty network traffic. 

Catalyst is easy to scale, especially because of stacking. The stack member can reach out to each member per the tech stack group as well as for Catalyst. As long as you have a sufficient number of ports in the core and distribution, you can scale and connect as much as you need in the access layers. If you exceed the number of ports existing in the distribution, you can add another distribution layer and connect them together to extend the number of endpoints. 

I have been satisfied with technical support. Especially when it comes to hardware attachments, their response is very fast, and almost by the next business day, we're able to go and replace it on-premises for a customer. 

The process was simple and straightforward. Most of us started our first year by taking Cisco courses, so we are talented at implementing and configuring Cisco switches. It depends on the project, but if you are looking at full premises with maybe 20 switches, the setup should take around three or four days. 

We implemented through an in-house team. We are partnered with Cisco and have our own professional service team certification in data center, networking, security, and collaboration systems. 

This is expensive, even when compared to competitors' products. 

The Catalyst doesn't come with licensing, but it comes with models. It comes with nine key series, each with its own purpose: some are for access, some for distribution, and some for the core, so it's not a matter of licensing. The only licensing that you are using with Catalyst is either the Essential or Advantage licensing, which represents Layer 2 or Layer 3 switches. If you are going to use Layer 3 for routing, use the Advantage license. Otherwise, use the Essential license, which is meant for the access switches. 

Dell EMC has a magnificent working portfolio, but customers still may not trust its durability and reliability. Most customers will choose Cisco rather than Dell EMC, even though Dell EMC has a reliable reputation and is very cost-effective. Yet, from my side as a partner and someone who works a lot with technology, I would recommend Dell EMC for customers with a smaller budget that needs a flexible and a cost-effective solution, rather than picking a small solution from Cisco. I would commit to buying a large solution from Dell EMC, then going with a reliable solution provider. 

I would recommend Cisco Catalyst for its abilities, durability, and the support. Cisco is very familiar—all engineers know Cisco very well—and we can handle the troubleshooting and configuration. 

The Advantage license is suitable for large companies. All of the oil and gas sectors use the Advantage license for their switches. Even they are not going to use all the layers or access switches, but they invest a lot and have a huge budget for networking. For a small or medium company, you could use and split the Essential license and the Advantage one based on building needs in order to optimize the cost and make sure your solution is cost-effective.

I would rate Cisco a nine out of ten. Not a ten because of the high price. 

We are using all the three hierarchal models of Cisco Catalyst: 2960, 4500, and 6800. It is perfect for an enterprise setup where you have multiple buildings and you want to aggregate in a single building. 

I think one switch should go beyond the 10 gig connectivity to 40 gigs.

I've been working with Cisco Catalyst switches for more than 10 years.

Cisco Catalyst switches are resilient.

We can have multiple Cisco switches, like seven or eight, on a stack for 300 users. So it is highly scalable and easy to manage. There are 15,000 users on our campus total.

Installing Catalyst Switches is straightforward, just like with any other Cisco device. For the Alto switch, it hardly takes 20 or 30 minutes. I believe we used a configurator. All in, it takes seven to eight people to deploy because we have a large number of switches. And on the operations team, we have seven to eight people managing them.

I rate Cisco Catalyst switches nine out of 10. I would definitely recommend them to others.